tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8788833151558828041..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Perspicuity, diverse readings of Scripture and Psalm 17Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61013712669541857312019-08-14T21:42:54.889+12:002019-08-14T21:42:54.889+12:00"On the first hand, Protestantism both seized..."On the first hand, Protestantism both seized the right to translate the Bible from the power of Rome, and unleashed the Bible from its Latin chains, enabling its treasures to be read in local languages across Europe (and, later, spurred the work of Bible translators around the globe)."<br /><br />Last year at the British Library in their exhibition of 'treasures' (the contents change) among other wonders like the Codex Sinaiticus, I saw a French illustrated manuscript translation of the Bible from, I think, the 15th Century. This is a token that Rome was not inimical to translations into the vernacular, although they were rare and not policy. The opposition in England to an English translation was probably the result of Wycliffe's translation being associated with the ideas of the Lollards who were opposed to many of the traits of Rome. Lollards were still being burnt at the stake for heresy in the reign of Henry VIII.<br /><br />Remember that King Alfred had a translation of the Bible into Anglo Saxon/Old English. The Vulgate itself was originally a translation into a vernacular - a vulgar language!<br /><br />One issue with translations is that the language of the holy book becomes itself holy and immutable, even when the language of the people evolves. This happened to Biblical Hebrew, Old Syriac, Church Slavonic (and perhaps the language of the KJV!)<br /><br />All translation is problematic, there is loss. I have the book "Mouse or Rat" by Umberto Eco. It is all about translation and the issues. The title which is explained in the first chapter flows from Eco's task in translating Camus' "La Peste" from French into Italian. He had a problem translating 'rat' - the carrier of the eponymous plague - into Italian. Given that you can have this kind of problem translating the name of an animal from one modern language to another, both belonging to the same language group, and relating to a reasonably modern context, there will be significant issues in translating a text from an ancient language, with the unspoken assumptions of an ancient culture, into a modern language and a very different cultural context.<br /><br />However, the late Lamin Saneh pointed out that translation is actually one of Christianity's great strengths. It is powerful that the Gospel is expressed in one's mother tongue, one's heart language. Translation is one reason why Christianity no longer belongs to the 'West' (and so, perhaps, we should spend less time thinking how it can be changed to accommodate changes in Western culture).<br /><br />Translation makes perspicuity possible. Tyndale's ploughboy can know more of the scriptures than the (then) Archbishop of Canterbury. However, translation also make misunderstanding more possible.David Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16083205686812792969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57425042165150908592019-08-14T15:55:25.327+12:002019-08-14T15:55:25.327+12:00The pertinent remaining question, Peter, from your...The pertinent remaining question, Peter, from your thesis here, must be very difficult to justify from a 'Sola Scriptura' perspective"<br /><br />"Is it only God's Word when perspicuous? Does it remain God's Word when the text is somewhat mangled?"<br /><br />Obviously, this is where the hermeneutic could be challenged from either perspective - whether conservative or liberal. Surely, what needs to be taken into account is that the scriptures are humanly understood messages from God - not a facsimile of what God might be saying. Also, there is the matter of context. Would God be saying the very same things to the people of today, whose understanding of God and Creation may be very different from that of the ancients?<br /><br />Certainly, the role of the Holy Spirit is needed today - every bit as much as it was in the earliest centuries of the Church <br />Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.com